https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113230 Exemption under Notification No. 1/95-C.E. for indigenous procurement of capital goods could not be denied on the basis of a recommendation requirement that was inserted only later by Notification No. 31/98-C.E. and applied from 15-9-1998, after the goods had been procured. The record also showed a clarification from the Development Commissioner that no such recommendation was needed, along with a CT3 certificate, Ministry permission for duty-free procurement, and use of the goods for the intended purpose. Since the remaining exemption conditions were satisfied, the appellants were entitled to the benefit and the demand was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 May 2012 14:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113230 Exemption under Notification No. 1/95-C.E. for indigenous procurement of capital goods could not be denied on the basis of a recommendation requirement that was inserted only later by Notification No. 31/98-C.E. and applied from 15-9-1998, after the goods had been procured. The record also showed a clarification from the Development Commissioner that no such recommendation was needed, along with a CT3 certificate, Ministry permission for duty-free procurement, and use of the goods for the intended purpose. Since the remaining exemption conditions were satisfied, the appellants were entitled to the benefit and the demand was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113230